What future for the Global Aid for Trade Initiative? Towards an assessment of its achievements and limitations

Abstract

As with any form of contemporary global governance, the impact of the global Aid for Trade Initiative (2006) has been mixed. However, to dismiss it as a failure would be premature. The co‐ordination system established was based on best‐practice techniques of governance in a diverse non‐hierarchical environment, such as the international development community. This form of co‐operation cannot overcome global economic and political asymmetries, but it can be effective in several respects. In particular, the Initiative led to increased funding for AfT and kick‐started a range of initiatives and technical advances; while the monitoring process has evolved significantly to give voice to new actors and issues. Although the future of the AfT Initiative is uncertain, its achievements merit careful consideration.

EU Trade and Non‐trade Objectives: New Survey Evidence on Policy Design and Effectiveness

“…These findings are only suggestive, given the small sample size, but they point to diverging preferences on what particular instruments to use to pursue NTPOs, and the salience of efforts by the EU to enhance policy coherence (Carbone and Keijzer, 2016) by complementing trade agreements with aid for trade (Hynes and Holden, 2016). A potential reason why respondents are not convinced that trade agreements are an effective tool is the view expressed by many respondents that the EU does not effectively monitor how the implementation of trade agreements impacts on non‐trade outcomes (see Fiorini et al 2019).…”

Aid for trade and export diversification in recipient‐countries

“…This applies particularly to LDC economies that are heavily dependent on a narrow basket of primary export products. At the same time, many studies (Bearce, Finkel, Pérez‐Liñán, Rodríguez‐Zepeda, & Surzhko‐Harned, ; Busse, Hoekstra, & Königer, ; Calì & TeVelde, ; Ghimire, Mukherjee, & Alvi, ; Helble, Mann, & Wilson, ; Hühne, Meyer, & Nunnenkamp, , Hühne, Meyer, & Nunnenkamp, 2014b; Hynes & Holden, ; Martínez‐Zarzoso, Nowak‐Lehmann, & Rehwald, ; Martuscelli & Winters, ; Te Velde & Razzaque, ; Vijil & Wagner, ) have explored the effectiveness of AfT, notably in terms of countries' export performance. The latter is usually measured by recipient‐countries' overall export to GDP ratio or their primary versus manufacturing export to GDP ratio.…”

Aid for Trade and Recipient Countries’ Export Structure: Does Trade Policy Liberalisation Matter?

“…The bulk of the studies 1 1A recent detailed literature review on AfT effectiveness with respect to recipient countries’ export performance could be found in OECD/WTO (2017). (e.g., Bearce, Finkel, Pérez-Liñán, Rodríguez-Zepeda, & Surzhko-Harned, 2013; Busse, Hoekstra, & Königer, 2012; Cali & Te Velde, 2011; Ghimire, Mukherjee, & Alvi, 2016; Helble, Mann, & Wilson, 2012; Hühne, Meyer, & Nunnenkamp, 2014a, 2014b; Hynes & Holden, 2016; Martinez-Zarzoso, Nowak-Lehmann, & Rehwald, 2017; Martuscelli & Winters, 2014; Te Velde & Razzaque, 2013; Vijil & Wagner, 2012) that have investigated AfT effectiveness has tended to report a positive impact of AfT on recipient countries’ export performance, the latter having been usually measured by export to GDP ratio. At the same time, the studies that have examined the impact of trade policy liberalisation (e.g., Agosin, 1991; Ahmed, 2000; Clarke & Kirkpatrick, 1992; Greenaway & Sapsford, 1994; Harrigan & Mosley, 1991; Ju, Yi, & Li, 2010; Pacheco-López, 2005; Ratnaike, 2012; Santos-Paulino, 2002, 2006; Santos-Paulino & Thirlwall, 2004; Shafaedin, 1994; Zakaria, 2014) have reported mixed empirical evidence.…”